appears to be good price for the 2022 model. has a touch bar and active cooling compared with the macbook air
CamelCamelCamel.
cause Tim Apple said soo!!!
Cause his wife said so.
you mean husband?
256gb model is slower than the m1 get the 512gb
In what margin?
50%-ish
M2 MBPs are using single 256GB NAND chips so no more multi-channel speed.
M2 MBA is superior than M2 MBP in every way.
M2 air is superior to the M2 13 pro
M2 air basically has MagSafe added, a new screen (but with a notch), keyboard without touchbar. However, battery life, and performance won't be as good as MBP. The SSD issue is likely to remain there (so you probably still need to go for 512GB).
The camera is also better. 1080p vs 720p.
Once you changed MBA M2's 8-8 configuration to 8-10 configuration, the price is higher.
8GB RAM.. err.. no..
8GB RAM… They must be going for the retro vibe.. I'm looking forward to the M3 where they bring back dialup modems 🤪
RAM not upgradeable either. 8GB forever lol.
Ouch.. that's even worse!
Yeah. I was disappointed to see they're not stocking 16GB.
Never had an issue using this for work with 8GB of ram.
It's ARM so things operate abit differently.
8GB ram is fine for work use
I have M1 Mac mini and MBP 13” and both have been great, but if you can afford, then get the 16GB ram model after you upgrade to 512GB on the M2
24 better?
No it's not really. Especially with modern web applications. Not to mention they don't support memory upgrades anymore since it's kinda built into the SoC now - so you'll forever be stuck with 8GB.
So 16GB is good but 24 is a waste of $
Well 16gb (so actually just +8gb) is a $200 upgrade, because apple is extortionate
How can you possibly defend 8gb ram on an $1800 laptop lmao
My Lenovo laptop form 2017 had 8Gb of RAM. I'd hope that a similarly priced laptop 5 years later would have some upgrades…
Lol. I tend to stay away from buying devices with less RAM than my phone. Lol.
Because it is all 90% of people realistically need?
I agree, if people need more than 8gb than maybe get a laptop with more than 8gb but for the average user it's plenty.
My current work laptop has 8gb of memory and it is more than enough for my use. Even my desktop at home which I built a long time ago only has 8gb (which was a lot at the time and 16 was considered extreme) and for average consumer use it's plenty.
Like what is the average user doing? Probably using a web browser 90% of the time, maybe an email client and potentially word/excel, 8gb for that is fine.
Sure a MacBook labelled as Pro should have more but it all depends on what you are using it for. Also the comments about it being $1800 and only having 8gb, Apple is hardly a company that is value for money when it comes to their products, you're paying for the brand.
@Nebargains: A web browser with about 4-8 tabs opened (which is pretty normal) takes up about 1-2GB of RAM itself depending on what is opened. The MacOS itself runs with a minimum of 4GB used. Leaving not much RAM left. Yes, it will memory swap and SSD helps with swapping. But it's not optimal.
"Normal" users on Mac platforms also may wish to Parallels / VMWare to run Windows apps as well. That will be another 4-6GB just there.
The people spending $1800 on a laptop are obviously not part of that 90%
"pro" device, 8GB ram?
If 8gb of ram is enough for you….go get an $800 laptop.
Won't be too much of a problem is just moderate use.
But smaller RAM with moderate use means more frequent swapping with SSD. Not so good overall experience plus shortened SSD lifespan?
I'm sure whoever need 8+256 MBP are better suited for cheaper M1 MBAs, now that M2 MBA is released.
It's a shame how quickly people downvote 8gb Apple Silicon devices, presumably without having used them regularly. I get that it pales in comparison to similarly priced Windows laptops, but having gone from two laptops with 32gb in each (and my desktop rig has 64gb), I was genuinely impressed with the day to day performance of my 13" MBP with M1 and only 8gb of ram. The very fast SSD and the OS optimisations does make it feel significantly snappier than the specs would indicate.
No, RAM is RAM. What you are feeling is CPU improvement. Also, for most people, we have a tendency to be biased towards the products we purchased. Same goes for those youTubers. They are no longer going for that 8GB RAM on Apple Silicon is so great BS this time around. If you use Macs for work, then you really should consider at least 16GB. You cannot run docker containers which require 16GB RAM to run well to run just the same with only 8GB RAM. Let's not forget it is "Unified" memory so if you were to do heavy video or gaming, more of that RAM has to be used for video. M2 goes up to 24GB max RAM. Apple never said RAM does not matter.
I have a 16GB M1 and honestly I am not that impressed. M1 Pro and M1 Max, so far, I am impressed, but there is still growing pain. For me, with Web browsing, the NBN speed dictates more of the experience. OS optimisations. You are new to Mac OS I reckon. There are also some changes which are annoying. It really depends on how deep you use the applications. Office365 Apple Silicon has bugs. It's one thing to run fast, it is another thing when it doesn't behave right. If you don't use pivot charts in Excel, you will think Office365 Apple version is great. If you do, you will most likely encounter the bug.
Boot from Thunderbolt setup for Apple silicon is inferior to Macbook Pros with Intel. The subpar USB performance. When an inferior Intel 11th gen mobile CPU can do 4x4K, it is a bitter pill to swallow that M1 supports single external display.
I don't use my MacBook Pro M1 Pro for work and it's my personal laptop (as are the others I mentioned), but they've done well for what I want to use it for which is presumably mainstream uses (web browsing, streaming, light/casual gaming, etc) but with great screen/battery/etc. That being said, if I did use it for those examples you called out, maybe I'd have a different sentiment but so far I've been pretty happy with both this MacBook Pro 14", as well as my previous 13" MBP with M1. I think the comments from YouTubers this time are possibly the result of the SSD issues in the 256/8gb base spec and the impact it has on swap performance.
@yanlianglee: Non intensive games like CSGO and some random Apple Arcade things, and then through Parallels, Total Annihilation, C&C,…. and some emulators through Retroarch and OpenEmu. I actually do have an older Blade 15 (2070) but I found the battery life and the proprietary charging cable on it meant it was too much of a hassle to carry whereas the MacBook Pro seems to last ridiculously long regardless of what I use it for.
Thanks for the assessment as an owner. The M1 lineup do look well built, but it baffles me that people still think 8GB is enough for a general purpose device, especially one with "Pro" in the name…
@ssfps: Maybe I'll rephrase my comment earlier, even if it isn't as well endowed spec-wise as it's Windows counterparts at this price point, it hides it's weakness rather well and plays to its strengths in a way which would leave most users pretty happy with the overall performance/battery life/form factor/etc relative to the Windows laptops. This is based on my experience with the M1 MBP 13" - it sounds like the M2 isn't as cracking as M1 was.
Mate, pretty sure M1 was not built for your specialist use cases. It's a general purpose efficiency chip for the masses, and it does a heck of a lot of things great. If you only wan't to compare on fringe cases, I simply could not buy a Windows laptop that will encode cool and quite on the go for a full work day….
i have 16gb in my windows desktop ….with office365 and visio open it doesn’t even hit 8GB …..have 16gb because it came as 2x8gb sticks for the memory interleave …….
maybe i’m the only person that looks at how much memory is actually used by what apps.
only memory hog i used to have was chrome and the way it keeps tabs open which eats memory ….but i now use edge.
my current intel macbook air with office doesn’t hit 8gb of ram useage …. only turn off for me on the M2 is this ssd chip size and speed ….not 8gb vs 16gb.
maybe i’m the only person that looks at how much memory is actually used by what apps.
I think it's more often the people saying 8gb is fine that don't look at their swap being thrashed.
Edge is chrome now, I doubt MS are optimising it to use significantly less RAM.
General office use usually includes multitasking, eg having multiple office applications/documents open, plus a web browser with several tabs. It's convenient for tabs to be persistent and left open long term, eg for web mail clients, portal logins, etc. Further, these days electron apps are popular for general office tasks, such as slack or MS Teams. Teams alone uses up to 1GB of RAM on my laptop.
@ssfps: Edge is based on "chromium" the open source version, and it has a lot of changes from "chrome" the google specific version …. we tested them at work when deciding what the default browser would be ….. edge won as it used less resources, on the teams front …. less than 8GB used and not going to swap unless running chrome, we had about 1000 laptops still on 8GB and saw what was using resources when we moves to Teams …. we load Office365 apps locally …..
"Jun 25 2021 01:50 AM
Teams 2.0 Moves Away from Electron to Embrace Edge WebView2
Windows 11 will include a consumer version of Teams, which looks as if it will be the first iteration of Teams 2.0, a new architecture which replaces Electron with Edge WebView2 as the basis for the Teams client. Microsoft predicts that the change will reduce the memory footprint by half " ….. vendors are trying to use less resources so that they can cater for a broader base of users …..
Microsoft predicts that the change will reduce the memory footprint by half
I'll believe it when I see it! Good news if true though, teams is a nightmare, although the memory footprint isn't even the worst of teams. How a chat app fails to keep up with standard typing speeds and jumbles letters out of order…
You clearly don't know what RAM is or how it works
M2 has so far proven to be a let down with Apple comprimising on other components (SSD speed halved for base spec) and thermals - M2 Pro showing temps over 100C…
Trash SSD speeds.
You joke, but the SSD speeds in the 256gb are absolute trash-tier. Tests indicate they get between 14-1500mb/s Read/Write.
For comparison my 5 year old Lenovo Yoga 920 gets about 3400mb/s Read and 1200mb/s write on the same test. My MBP Pro 14 gets about 6900mb/s Read and 5600mb/s write.
For a 2000 dollar computer the SSD is barely faster than a Samsung T7 via USB 3.2. That's pretty awful by anyone's standards.
Your MBP 14 M1 Pro is 1TB right? The 512GB version cannot reach that speed. Also, that's SLC cache speed. T7, honestly, has a small SLC cache and pretty bad sustained write and that's the 1TB version.
The thing is that, we generally cannot benefit from 6900/5600 with just a single NVMe SSD (running blackmagic / crystaldiskmark is merely to make you feel better), with Thunderbolt 4 being PCIe gen 3 x4 maximum.
The lousy SSD speed might be an issue for pros with 8K work or 4K slow mo videos. However, if we are talking about 4K/60fps videos, that's still good enough. Show me cases where you actually can take real advantage of 6500/5600 (not benchmark apps).
@netsurfer: 512gb Base model MBP 14.
And no, right now it's not going to be a big deal, but people keep their macbooks for half a decade or more, and down the line that pathetic read/write speed is going to really come back to bite them in the arse.
Stop defending this, a bad mark is a bad mark, no matter how much people try to justify it. Reminds me of back in the day when people seriously repeated "you're holding it wrong" or "it's your fault your phone bent" then went suspiciously silent when Apple admitted fault by fixing the issues in later models.
Apple are touting the blazing speed and professional abilities of the M2, so to say that we shouldn't judge it by what professionals would use it for is just being an apologist.
@TheRealCJ: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mbp-2021-ssd-speed-comp…
The figures listed there match my experience. 6900/5600 on MBP 14 / 512 is a brave call. I suggest you avoid quoting those figures on the Web coz. that's not the norm.
The main question is what we see M1 and M2 are (NOT M1 Pro/Max or M2 Pro/Max). We are looking at PCIe gen 3 x4 max. Furthermore, 2021, we saw BOTH WD and Samsung cut corners on their mainstream NVMe SSDs. However, because we don't buy 256GB NVMe SSDs on PC side, they can still trick us with SLC cache and also run 8 channels. However, the NAND TLC true speed without cache was halved in 2021 for those 2 mainstream models.
My main issue is that a lot of people only looked at that max figures and miss out the second part. The NAND sustained speed appears to also suffer (for M2 with 256GB SSD (single NAND chip)). Whether that's due to the SSD controller essentially runs in 4 channel mode (instead of 8) is yet to be checked. The real worrying part is that could this be a sign of how SSD industry is moving towards?
PCIe gen 5 is going to run 16 channel mode (up from 8 in PCIe gen 3 and gen 4) so QLC will be able to trick consumers better under that. If you understand what's going on with the SSD tech and trend, then you do question whether this is entirely Apple's fault (I reckon the SSD controller in M2 is not made by Apple).
@TheRealCJ: Well, I have a MBP as well and I cannot get those figures. Your figures are better than M1 Max / 2TB norm.
Post a screenshot perhaps, so we know your MBP has a really great PCIe gen 4 SSD. Also, still waiting for your example of a real use case where you manage to get that type of performance in a real world usage situation. Clearly, at least the write speed would drop in a sustained situation.
@netsurfer: Dunno what to tell you my dude, this is what I got.
Regardless of what the MBP 14 gets, my point still stands that you shouldn't defend Apple's decision to cripple the base model M2 laptops, even in comparison to their predecessor. It's just plain apologia and it shouldn't be defended, even if you think it isn't a big deal.
@TheRealCJ: That's great. Mine is 5500, 4500 sequential read/write, my random read/write QD1 is higher than yours. I do have less storage space remaining though 1GB file test basically tests the SLC cache. Do bear in mind the top figures are SEQ Q8T1, whereas in Q1T1 situation, we are looking at 3150.
Q8T1 isn't something I can really use often. That kind of workload, I normally send them to cloud machines (AWS, GCP).
I am not defending Apple's decision. I am just puzzled. Is that a way to entice people to go 512GB? Will Apple tell the controller maker to stop only optimising for dual NAND chips setup? Furthermore, is there something the 512GB version (the new one) is hiding? However, I do know that, on Windows, using PCIe gen 4 SSD to boot doesn't make it boot 7-14 times faster than SATA. The random read/write Q1T1 for MBP PCIe gen 4 NVMe SSD isn't that impressive to be honest.
When you use CrystalDiskMark on PC, and you choose Real World Performance profile, you would notice CrystalDiskMark drops all higher queue depth tests. That's the bit which is tricky. See, Max did mention in general use, M2 does run apps faster than M1. But, we cannot help but concentrate on the large file tests.
@netsurfer: Guarantee the reason is simply profit. Apple probably cut a deal for a tonne of 256gb chips, and figured that "well, anyone buying the base model don't matter to us anyway, so no need to optimise it or make 512gb the base model since that will cut into our profit margin."
We've seen it time and again from manufacturers, Apple included (and quite often especially) that they have what they consider the "real" base model, with the actual cheapest SKU being what is in effect the extreme budget version.
@TheRealCJ: Your random read/write Q1T1 is 52MB/s and 28MB/s. Is that good enough for you? We have PCIe gen 4 NVMe SSDs, which are QLC based. If you simply run benchmark software, you can get 5000+ easily in sequential high queue depth situation, but in real sustained write, it can tank to 100MB/s. You are aware your 512GB SSD cannot sustain that write figure (5359) from start to finish for the entire drive right?
How many people can name usage scenarios which require Q8T1? You've only used 87GB of your SSD. Have you actually tried to boot from T7 on your MBP? You really should try it to see the REAL T7. It's not as good as you think.
Apple shouldn't do what they did BUT they are not the only one doing this is what I am trying to point out (WD and Samsung started in 2021). It's bad because PC laptop makers will most likely follow. If Apple is cutting cost, you expect PC makers to be white knights?
@TheRealCJ: If the M2 is for older parents, or students (because they have other Apple devices), is M2 256GB completely unusable? We have people raving about M1 devices using mostly Office apps and Web browsers.
There are 11th gen Intel i3 machines/laptops with PCIe gen 4, so just put a top notch PCIe gen 4 SSD in and claim that's way faster than Apple M2's SSD so get that instead? What's next? Any family PC or laptop with only a SATA SSD, we should prepare to throw it into the bin because it will be no good in 5 year's time?
@netsurfer: Since you seem to know a lot about read/write speeds and Macs, can you explain why the external SSD performance on this thing is so bad?
Here's a link to the images I just took
First image (white) is a Samsung T7 1TB (exFAT format), connected to my Yoga 920 via TB3 on CrystalDiskMark
Second image (black) is the exact same drive connected to my MBP 14 via TB4 on AmorphousDiskMark.
This is… bad, really bad. I use external drives a lot in my workflow so having sub-700 read/write speeds is going to hamper me quite a bit in the long run. I'm seriously considering returning this thing…
@TheRealCJ: That (subpar USB-C, Thunderbolt 3 or 4) performance is my biggest gripe on Macbook Air/Pro M1. The Thunderbolt 3/4 chipset is from Intel so this is just very puzzling. Problem is, Apple has no incentive to fix USB 3.2 gen 1 or USB 3.2 gen 2 performance issue. The Thunderbolt 3/4 performance drop is less of an issue (as getting 2500 in benchmark apps is reachable).
Thunderbolt 3/4 enclosure is an expensive fix to this issue in general. The performance still isn't perfect, but at least at TB3/TB4, the relative gap seems smaller (vs. Intel PC with Thunderbolt 3/4) in terms of percentage. You also need a decent PCIe gen 3 NVMe SSD for TB3/TB4. Don't bother with PCIe gen 4 SSD since Thunderbolt 4 is still PCIe gen 3 x4.
Again, it comes down to whether we are being realistic or we care too much about benchmark figures. T7 Sustained write (~350MB/s): https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/EgsuszbH3d7YKQidBmQrx4-970…
I have a T7 too and I know the marketing trick Samsung did before purchasing. However, at low 100s price point, a 1TB external SSD is quite cost effective (given a lot of cheapo USB 3.2 gen 2 cases use dodgy chipset). So, if my 1TB T7's true sustained write is 300MB/s, it is just hard for me to hammer 256GB M2's subpar SSD hard.
@TheRealCJ: Thunderbolt enclosure on M1 Pro CPU based MBP, 1TB Samsung 970 Evo Plus, empty drive (best case figures):
Note: Thunderbolt enclosure is NOT a USB 3.2 gen 2 enclosure. So, at queue depth of 1, there is virtually no difference. However, there is a difference in high queue depth. That's why, for bootable storage, it has to be Apple native. It would be the same for T7 (USB 3.2 gen 2). Question is, as a data SSD, do you care about high queue depth? A hidden pain: with Apple native format, I don't think I can upgrade the SSD firmware. PC Thunderbolt figures are still better, but I think most people will be okay with those results.
As usual, this is SLC cache speed, NOT true NAND speed. There are 2 batches of 970 Evo Plus, this is the newer batch, which has a far more aggressive SLC cache but inferior NAND. True TLC NAND speed is about 700MB/s, whereas the older batch is 1.2 GB/s. However, the new batch's SLC cache is much larger and faster. So is the random read/write performance. Also, since Thunderbolt 4 is still PCIe gen 3 x4, there is no point putting in a PCIe gen 4 x4 SSD.
Anyway, that's why Apple won't bother fixing USB 3.2 gen 2 issue (no a priority) because for people who do need fast external storage, Apple expect them to go Thunderbolt.
@netsurfer: Yeah, I reformatted to HFC+ and got about 800 read/write, which is basically 25% better than the original test, but still far less than on my Lenovo.
@TheRealCJ: For high queue depth right? Problem is, unless you run database server or use it as a system drive, are you really going to be using high queue depth at all? I guess given we bought 1TB T7 for ~$120, it is no big deal using it purely for the Mac.
I still have a family PC with only 850 Evo SSD (most family members only do Web browsing and use Office apps) and I still have files on 4TB HDDs. PCIe gen 3 SSDs are really overkill for most of us. If I really need high queue depth and heavy disk I/O, I'd asked work to pay for it.
cries in seagate 80GB IDE hard drive
That's right. Don't buy this 256Gb.
Get a 512Gb instead.
Don't get this. It's the ugly middle child.
For those who are unaware, this is the same old 13" MBP body from years back, except it has the M2 chip now. Everything else is still the same and trash tier at this point in 2022 — 720p webcam, anyone?
That was very quick
No "Pro" device in 2022 should have 8GB RAM.
Guys - so is getting the MacBook Air 2022 M2 (8gb ram 256gb) worth it? I am getting mixed signals..
No get the M1 instead.
for me the only downside for the air 8/256 is the ssd isnt as fast as it could be but i don’t think i’d notice it day to day ….. and the M2 chip, magsafe and other new stuff on the M2 air seem to make it worth it ….. once apps are loaded the stuff that writes back to ssd is small ….
It's not confirmed if the M2 air will have the half speed SSD design. If it does this will effect performance even for the average user. The M1 Air is fantastic and has been available very close to $1k in deals over the last 2 years. I'll upgrade to the base M2 air if it doesnt overheat and has equivelant or better SSD/system performance, it'll still be an $800 gap or so though.
Get a base M1 Air on special for $1349 and sell it on ebay for $900ish in 3 years and buy the new hotness again, rinse and repeat. Total cost of $2.80 per week for a laptop that is always under warrantee (AUS stat warrantee can be stretched that far if you push) and is close to the new hotness all the time. I don't understand anyone that pays $4-6k and keeps their laptops until they die at an inconvenient time in 5-6 years
Yes very worth it. Lots of improvements if you don’t already own an M1.
Don't waste of money.
for others who struggled to read the comment above, my guy meant don't buy it, its a waste of money.
I hope noone is buying the 8gb model of this. I'm going to ignore the calls that the m1/m2's still run fast when out of ram - which is true because of their unified memory. However because their SSD is intentionally made poor (by having one 256gb chip, and not two 128gb chips so half the bandwidth), it can slow down to celeron speeds - which just isn't acceptable at this price point, and the previous generation does not.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/337646-apples-entry-leve…
The cheapest MacBook Pro in 2014 already has the standard 8G ram…
That is really one of the things that only Apple can do.
Mircosoft: Are you looking for i5+8g ram+256 for 1800dollars?
Any suggestions for best 15in Mac laptop for Uni student please? 16gb Ram and 512 HDD. TIA
I had a 2013 15" for 2 years with a 500gb ssd and it served me well (2017-2019) before I upgraded to the 14" 2021. bought the 15" for 610, and traded it in 2 years later for 675.
No one should buy this.
I hate the display notch and the 8gb ram. Will not buy.
Tim Cook dropped the ball. Too busy filming Jurassic movie 🦖🦕🐌
Wow here is 2022, fanboys are still defending 8G ram and slow speed SSD for Apple’s Pro series.
Completely new to the MAC world…..I am looking for a laptop for video edition (10 bit) and keen on the pro version with 24MB RAM, 512 SSD.
But is it worth to get the MBP M2 ?
Thanks in advance !
but why?